Universal Injunctions

[task0778]

As most of us know, Trump has declared a national emergency on the southern border and will use funds appropriated for another use to build his wall. Right or wrong, the Dems will surely find an activist district federal judge who will issue a national (universal) injunction to stop him from doing so. There are and will be other threads to discuss that decision, but my point here is to say that we as a country need to lay out the groundwork for what a district federal judge can or should or should not do.

The concept of universal injunctions would shock most Americans. Such injunctions permit a single one of the more than 600 federal district judges overseeing the case of a single party to block the executive branch from enforcing or implementing a law, regulation, executive order, or policy for every American across the country over the typically many years the case is litigated.

Stated simply: Universal injunctions give an unelected judge power over the president, shunting aside the considered judgment of the people’s representatives in Congress and the presidency.

Stop Activists From Controlling The Country With Universal Injunctions


Repubs did the same thing to Obama, and if the current status quo is not changed, will do so to the next Dem president. While there does need to be judicial restraint against the Executive under the Separation of Powers, it does seem like the process has gotten out of hand.

Universal injunctions were not always a fact of political life. As former attorney general Jeff Sessions argued to the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference, nationwide injunctions were never employed for the first 175 years of our republic. But under the Trump presidency, lawfare by universal injunction has been a Resistance trump card. Such injunctions were used 22 times within the president’s first two years in office. While President Trump’s predecessors were similarly stymied on select occasions, they were not nearly challenged at such a rapid rate, or on such frequently ridiculous grounds. [same link]


We can argue about what is ridiculous and what isn't until the cows come home, but it seems to me that this particular approach allows Congress to abrogate their responsibilities. Again. The plain and simple truth is that the US Congress is not doing their jobs, and instead are using the Judiciary as a political ploy to attain their objectives.


What Does the Supreme Court Say?

Thomas expressed that he was “skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions…they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.” After chronicling the rise of universal injunctions and questioning their legality, Thomas concluded that they:

at best ‘boil down to a policy judgment’ about how powers ought to be allocated among our three branches of government…But the people already made that choice when they ratified the Constitution…universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious. If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so. The Trump administration ought to oblige the Court.
[same link]


So:

The Trump administration should challenge the legitimacy of universal injunctions up to the Supreme Court, and win. Perhaps the opportunity will present itself in the ongoing border wall fight, but if not in that instance, it is clear the president will have his pick on any number of cases over which to litigate. While there is no guarantee the administration will prevail, in particular given the chief justice’s reported desire to maintain the court’s independence—apparently by ruling narrowly, and refusing to upset long-standing policies like challenging abusive lower courts—this fight is worth it. [same link]



I hope that Trump does challenge the legitimacy of universal injunctions up to the Supreme Court; hopefully the SCOTUS will deny that legitimacy, and the Congress will enact some other constitutional means of reining in the Executive. Who IMHO is already too powerful, but there's a right way and a bunch of wrong ways, and universal injunctions is not the right way. Maybe slap a 30 day suspension instead of an open-ended injunction, maybe an automatic review by the DC Court of Appeals so that the delay and obstruction tactic isn't as effective.

 

[OldLady]

As most of us know, Trump has declared a national emergency on the southern border and will use funds appropriated for another use to build his wall. Right or wrong, the Dems will surely find an activist district federal judge who will issue a national (universal) injunction to stop him from doing so. There are and will be other threads to discuss that decision, but my point here is to say that we as a country need to lay out the groundwork for what a district federal judge can or should or should not do.

The concept of universal injunctions would shock most Americans. Such injunctions permit a single one of the more than 600 federal district judges overseeing the case of a single party to block the executive branch from enforcing or implementing a law, regulation, executive order, or policy for every American across the country over the typically many years the case is litigated.

Stated simply: Universal injunctions give an unelected judge power over the president, shunting aside the considered judgment of the people’s representatives in Congress and the presidency.

Stop Activists From Controlling The Country With Universal Injunctions


Repubs did the same thing to Obama, and if the current status quo is not changed, will do so to the next Dem president. While there does need to be judicial restraint against the Executive under the Separation of Powers, it does seem like the process has gotten out of hand.

Universal injunctions were not always a fact of political life. As former attorney general Jeff Sessions argued to the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference, nationwide injunctions were never employed for the first 175 years of our republic. But under the Trump presidency, lawfare by universal injunction has been a Resistance trump card. Such injunctions were used 22 times within the president’s first two years in office. While President Trump’s predecessors were similarly stymied on select occasions, they were not nearly challenged at such a rapid rate, or on such frequently ridiculous grounds. [same link]


We can argue about what is ridiculous and what isn't until the cows come home, but it seems to me that this particular approach allows Congress to abrogate their responsibilities. Again. The plain and simple truth is that the US Congress is not doing their jobs, and instead are using the Judiciary as a political ploy to attain their objectives.


What Does the Supreme Court Say?

Thomas expressed that he was “skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions…they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.” After chronicling the rise of universal injunctions and questioning their legality, Thomas concluded that they:

at best ‘boil down to a policy judgment’ about how powers ought to be allocated among our three branches of government…But the people already made that choice when they ratified the Constitution…universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious. If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so. The Trump administration ought to oblige the Court.
[same link]


So:

The Trump administration should challenge the legitimacy of universal injunctions up to the Supreme Court, and win. Perhaps the opportunity will present itself in the ongoing border wall fight, but if not in that instance, it is clear the president will have his pick on any number of cases over which to litigate. While there is no guarantee the administration will prevail, in particular given the chief justice’s reported desire to maintain the court’s independence—apparently by ruling narrowly, and refusing to upset long-standing policies like challenging abusive lower courts—this fight is worth it. [same link]



I hope that Trump does challenge the legitimacy of universal injunctions up to the Supreme Court; hopefully the SCOTUS will deny that legitimacy, and the Congress will enact some other constitutional means of reining in the Executive. Who IMHO is already too powerful, but there's a right way and a bunch of wrong ways, and universal injunctions is not the right way. Maybe slap a 30 day suspension instead of an open-ended injunction, maybe an automatic review by the DC Court of Appeals so that the delay and obstruction tactic isn't as effective.

? The Congress DID do its job, task. It said NO. If offered 1.3 billion for new physical barriers. The President is the one who has refused to accept the decision of the elected officials that represent the people.
The President has overstepped the line big time. Since the decision impacts all in the country equally, I see no reason why an injunction would not be universal. In this case, how would an injunction in, say, Idaho, make any sense?

 

[task0778]

There are other threads to discuss the righteousness of Trump's actions, my issue is with the use of universal injunctions by one party against the other at every turn, cuz that's what it's going to boil down to. The Judiciary is being used by both parties to advance their political power, as a tactic to delay and obstruct the other side. I'm not okay with that, but it looks like that's the road we're going to travel on. Do you really want one unelected federal district judge anywhere in the country to override the POTUS's decisions on any executive decision at every turn? For purely political reasons? Like he/she knows better than the President does all the reasons why he/she is taking whatever action they're taking AND should interdict? Are you going to tell me that each of the 22 times a federal district judge has issued a UI against Trump were all justified? Sooner or later, a Democrat is going to be our President, so you do realize that he/she will face the same obstinance that Trump is facing now?

 

[OldLady]

There are other threads to discuss the righteousness of Trump's actions, my issue is with the use of universal injunctions by one party against the other at every turn, cuz that's what it's going to boil down to. The Judiciary is being used by both parties to advance their political power, as a tactic to delay and obstruct the other side. I'm not okay with that, but it looks like that's the road we're going to travel on. Do you really want one unelected federal district judge anywhere in the country to override the POTUS's decisions on any executive decision at every turn? For purely political reasons? Like he/she knows better than the President does all the reasons why he/she is taking whatever action they're taking AND should interdict? Are you going to tell me that each of the 22 times a federal district judge has issued a UI against Trump were all justified? Sooner or later, a Democrat is going to be our President, so you do realize that he/she will face the same obstinance that Trump is facing now?

I understand your argument, but it seems alright to me that if a judge feels a case has merit, he or she can put such an order on hold until it is heard by the Court. Otherwise, a lot of damage could be done while a case is waiting to be heard.

The plaintiff is asking the Court for relief, and if the Court feels it is a valid request, it does no harm to wait until the Court can hear it. Does it?

I have a feeling this injunctive relief has been used all along, but it seems more noticeable since Trump's Orders have been sued such a lot. He needs a better legal team, if you ask me.

 

[task0778]

There are other threads to discuss the righteousness of Trump's actions, my issue is with the use of universal injunctions by one party against the other at every turn, cuz that's what it's going to boil down to. The Judiciary is being used by both parties to advance their political power, as a tactic to delay and obstruct the other side. I'm not okay with that, but it looks like that's the road we're going to travel on. Do you really want one unelected federal district judge anywhere in the country to override the POTUS's decisions on any executive decision at every turn? For purely political reasons? Like he/she knows better than the President does all the reasons why he/she is taking whatever action they're taking AND should interdict? Are you going to tell me that each of the 22 times a federal district judge has issued a UI against Trump were all justified? Sooner or later, a Democrat is going to be our President, so you do realize that he/she will face the same obstinance that Trump is facing now?

I understand your argument, but it seems alright to me that if a judge feels a case has merit, he or she can put such an order on hold until it is heard by the Court. Otherwise, a lot of damage could be done while a case is waiting to be heard.

The plaintiff is asking the Court for relief, and if the Court feels it is a valid request, it does no harm to wait until the Court can hear it. Does it?

I have a feeling this injunctive relief has been used all along, but it seems more noticeable since Trump's Orders have been sued such a lot. He needs a better legal team, if you ask me.

According to the OP link, several of the injunctions issued against Trump were somewhat short on merit. In many of those cases, I do not believe much damage was averted by the injunction, it was primarily political in nature by judges who are supposed to be impartial. Which I think is not the case in too many instances. The Congress gave the President the power to declare national emergencies, without much in the way of limitations or criteria. So it feels like Congress is asking the Judiciary to correct their mistakes, and that is not and should not be within the purview of the courts.